Content uploaded by Alexandre Dittrich
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alexandre Dittrich on Feb 22, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Behavior and Social Issues, 27, 4-19 (2018). © Ramon Cardinali de Fernandes & Alexandre Dittrich. Readers
of this article may copy it without the copyright owner’s permission, if the author and publisher are
acknowledged in the copy and the copy is used for educational, not-for-profit purposes. doi:
10.5210/bsi.v.27i0.8248
4
EXPANDING THE BEHAVIOR-ANALYTIC MEANINGS OF “FREEDOM”:
THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF ISRAEL GOLDIAMOND
Ramon Cardinali de Fernandes
1
Universidade Federal do Paraná (Brazil)
Alexandre Dittrich²
Universidade Federal do Paraná (Brazil)
ABSTRACT: The adoption of determinism and the use of the term “control” when referring to relations of
influence between environment and the actions of organisms seem to suggest that there is no room for
freedom in behavioral science. Nevertheless, some behavior analysts have articulated meanings of the word
“freedom” that are wholly consistent with the epistemological assumptions of radical behaviorism. Some
of these meanings, like those elaborated by Skinner, Baum and Catania, are relatively well-known in the
behavior-analytical community and had some measure of conceptual or practical impact. In order to expand
the possible behavior-analytic meanings of “freedom,” this article aimed to revisit and discuss a unique and
little-known formulation on the subject elaborated by Israel Goldiamond. To these ends, we present (a)
Goldiamond’s first remarks on freedom; (b) his subsequent proposal of a nonlinear behavior analysis; (c)
the concepts of degrees of freedom, degrees of coercion and “genuine choice”; and (d) the types of coercion
identified by Goldiamond that ultimately limit freedom in different social contexts. This is followed by a
discussion on how and to what extent Goldiamond’s formulation constitutes an expansion of the behavior-
analytic meanings of “freedom.” Similarities and differences between Goldiamond´s formulations and
those of Skinner, Baum and Catania are also discussed.
KEYWORDS: freedom, coercion, nonlinear behavior analysis, choice, Israel Goldiamond
Since determinism is one of its fundamental assumptions, radical behaviorism is often seen as
a philosophy opposed to freedom. Despite eventual disagreements on some aspects involving this
adoption of determinism (Laurenti, 2009), it is reasonable to assert that the majority of behavior
analysts consider control as inherent to behavioral relations (Dittrich, 2010). The adoption of
determinism, as well as the use of the term “control” when referring to relations of influence
between the environment and the actions of organisms seem to suggest that there is no room for
freedom in behavioral science (Sidman, 1989). Regardless of this apparent contradiction between
control and freedom, behavior analysts argue that only specific meanings of freedom are rejected
by radical behaviorism, namely those linked to world views that associate freedom with the
absence of control, the possession of “free will,” or that assume an independent agent causing
behavior (Baum, 2017; Dittrich, 2010; Flor, 2012; Laurenti, 2009; Skinner, 1971).
1
The authors would like to thank Bruno Strapasson, Gabriel de Luca, Julia Fonseca, Junio Rezende and Robson Cruz
for critical readings and helpful discussions. The authors would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their
helpful comments. Authors may be contacted at ramoncardinali@gmail.com and alexandredittrich@gmail.com.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF ISRAEL GOLDIAMOND
5
The rejection of these meanings of freedom has not eliminated the need for a consistent artic-
ulation of the idea of freedom with the epistemological assumptions of radical behaviorism. Per-
haps the most influential of these attempts has been B. F. Skinner’s, presented in the book Beyond
Freedom and Dignity (1971). In this book, Skinner comments on the traditional conceptions of
freedom—those referring to the absence of control and the existence of “free will”—and argues
that, as we identify and characterize the behavioral conditions that control the emission of the word
“freedom,” it is possible to develop meanings of freedom consistent with the radical behavior-
ist philosophy.
Identifying and characterizing the conditions under which the expression “freedom” is used
shifts the emphasis from traditional conceptions of freedom to the analysis of contingencies of
reinforcement. For Skinner (1971), this analysis indicates that one of the conditions in which the
term “freedom” is most commonly used is that where there is no aversive control of behavior,
whether by negative reinforcement or punishment. In this sense, the “struggle for freedom is not
due to a will to be free, but to certain behavioral processes characteristic of the human organism,
the chief effect of which is the avoidance of or escape from so-called “aversive” features of the
environment” (Skinner, 1971, p. 46).
Another meaning of “freedom” identified by Skinner (1971) relates to the absence of behav-
ioral control by positive reinforcement in situations with aversive consequences in the medium or
long term. A large part of the defenders of freedom—those that make up what Skinner (1971) has
called “the literature of freedom”—emphasize the meaning of freedom as the absence of immedi-
ate aversive control while ignoring control by positive reinforcement with deferred aversive con-
sequences. Deferred aversiveness and immediate positive reinforcement produce “feelings of free-
dom,” of “doing what you want,” and reduce the likelihood of countercontrol. Thus, immediate
positive reinforcement with deferred aversive consequences tend to give rise to the “happy slave”:
the person who, by having its behavior controlled by immediate positive reinforcement, “feels
free” and does not identify the sources of aversive control.
Dittrich (2010) and Weber (2005) also argue that Skinner connects the concepts of “self-
knowledge,” “self-control” and “countercontrol” with a behavioral meaning of freedom. These
three concepts refer to classes of behaviors that increase the likelihood that a person will totally or
partially eliminate sources of aversive stimulation (negative reinforcement or punishment),
whether immediate or deferred. The better the repertoire of self-knowledge, self-control and coun-
tercontrol of a person, the more likely it is that we classify this person as free (Dittrich, 2010). In
other words, it is more likely that we classify someone as “free” when we observe the occurrence
of these three classes of behavior and the occurrence of the type of consequences that they allow
(elimination or reduction of aversive environmental stimuli).
In short, the behavioral conditions that characterize freedom are, for Skinner, those in which
there are no contingencies of aversive control, whether negative reinforcement or punishment,
immediate or deferred. A review of the behavior-analytic literature reveals that, still today, these
formulations by Skinner prevail in works that deal with the relationships between freedom and
radical behaviorism (e.g., Abib, 2016; Baum, 2017; Cruz, 2010; Dittrich, 2010; Flor, 2012;
Laurenti, 2009; Sidman, 1989). Perhaps by the relevance, pioneering quality and obvious influence
of Skinner's works on behavior analysts, the proposal of alternative formulations on the theme of
freedom is unusual in the area. Some of the exceptions are discussed below.
FERNANDES & DITTRICH
6
Freedom and Choice: Alternatives to Skinner’s Formulations
By “alternative formulations” here we do not necessarily mean contrary formulations. They
are alternative meanings of freedom that are also consistent with radical behaviorism and comple-
mentary to Skinner’s meanings. These formulations are equally critical of the traditional concep-
tions of freedom mentioned previously and are consistent with Skinner’s meanings of freedom,
enabling an expansion of the possible meanings of this term for behavior analysis. Such conceptual
refinement could improve the interpretive and interventional abilities of behavior analysts, as well
as expand possibilities for dialogue with other areas interested in the theme of freedom.
This is the case for the meanings proposed by authors such as Baum (2017), Catania (1980,
1997) and Goldiamond (1965, 1974/2002, 1975a, 1975b, 1976). The formulations by these three
authors have one aspect in common: they relate freedom with the possibility of choice. All three
have pointed out that the relation between freedom and the possibility of choice is present both in
common sense discourse as well as in academic disciplines, such as Philosophy or the Social
Sciences. The recurrence of this meaning of freedom has motivated these authors to identify the
behavioral conditions that characterize the “possibility of choice” and subsequently to relate these
conditions with the theme of freedom.
In his book Understanding Behaviorism, Baum (2017) identifies three recurrent meanings of
freedom and proposes a behavior-analytic interpretation of them. He argues that many authors
describe freedom as the absence of impediments or coercion (e.g., release from slavery), which, in
behavioral terms, is equivalent to Skinner’s meaning of freedom as the absence of immediate aver-
sive consequences. Baum also argues that religious people sometimes speak of another kind of
freedom: “spiritual freedom.” The expression refers to the release from a metaphorical (spiritual)
prison and the need to exercise detachment from “worldly pleasures” (e.g., sex, food, material
goods, etc.). In behavioral terms, Baum argues that the emission of such expressions tend to occur
in conditions in which a person has a well-developed repertoire of self-control, which increases
sensitivity to the deferred positive reinforcements that tend to follow from practicing a “simpler,”
“gentle,” “altruistic” life, etc.
A third meaning of “freedom” identified by Baum—and one of special interest here—is what
he calls “political or social freedom”. Freedom, in this sense, would be “having choices” (2017, p.
165) while not being punished for making them. A free person could, for example, choose to par-
ticipate in different political parties without any of the possible choices causing aversive conse-
quences (e.g., political persecution). For Baum (2017), the possibility of choice means that “more
than one activity is possible” (p. 165) and to have freedom it is necessary that all alternative choices
are positively reinforced. As Baum (2017) puts it, “we noted that people report happiness when
their environment provides choices (alternative possible actions) and those choices have reinforc-
ing consequences rather than aversive consequences” (p. 264). In sum, although the theme of free-
dom is not central to Baum (2017), since his is a general textbook on behavior analysis, two of the
meanings he discusses (spiritual freedom, and political or social freedom) emphasize aspects that
were not addressed by Skinner.
Catania (1980, 1997) is another behavior analyst that relates freedom with the possibility of
choice. Similar to Baum (2017), Catania states that “choice implies the availability of alternatives”
(1980, p. 98). However, after identifying this connection, Catania’s discussion on freedom takes a
different path when compared to Baum’s. Catania emphasizes the possibility of experimentally
investigating how much organisms (human and non-human) “value freedom”—that is, how much
CONTRIBUTIONS OF ISRAEL GOLDIAMOND
7
organisms in general prefer conditions in which there are available alternatives (instead of condi-
tions in which only one alternative is possible).
Catania’s emphasis gave rise to a series of experiments in which competing reinforcement
schedules were arranged (Catania, 1980, 1997; Rost et al., 2014). Subjects were trained to respond
differently to two stimuli: one of them signaling a condition in which there is only one alternative
available (e.g., a colored disk) for obtaining reinforcement, thus characterizing a “forced choice,”
and the other signaling a condition in which there are alternatives available (e.g., more than one
colored disk) for reinforcement, thus characterizing a “free choice”. When reinforcement parame-
ters remain the same in the forced choice situation and in all the free choice alternatives, it is
assumed that preference for one of the conditions is controlled only by the “opportunity to choose”
(Rost et al., 2014).
In these experiments, it was found that when the reinforcement parameters in both conditions
are the same, or when there is greater reinforcement (in time or magnitude) in the free choice
alternatives, subjects in general—humans included—show a preference for the free choice condi-
tions. On the other hand, when the free choice alternatives provide smaller reinforcements (in time
or magnitude) than the forced choice condition, choice behavior changes and subjects give up free
choice (for experimental details and a comprehensive review of the literature, see Rost et al., 2014).
Israel Goldiamond on Freedom
Both Catania’s and Baum’s formulations deal with a behavioral meaning of “freedom as pos-
sibility of choice,” consisting of alternatives to Skinner’s formulations, which are recurrent in the
behavior-analytic literature. Catania’s remarks emphasize the experimental investigation on how
much organisms value conditions of freedom. The fact that this formulation originated an experi-
mental research program on the subject (Rost et al., 2014) reveals that, although not often men-
tioned in non-experimental papers that focus on the relation between freedom and behavior anal-
ysis, Catania’s research had some impact on the behavior-analytic community. Baum, on the other
hand, does not thoroughly explore the nuances of behavioral processes that characterize the “pos-
sibility of choice,” emphasizing only the absence of aversive consequences in the alternatives pre-
sented in situations of choice.
However, a behavior analyst who developed this meaning of “freedom as possibility of
choice” in a broad and detailed manner was Israel Goldiamond (1919-1995). In a series of publi-
cations, the first of them in 1965 (thus, six years before the publication of Beyond Freedom and
Dignity), Goldiamond formulates his own meaning of freedom, consistent with his unique way of
conducting functional behavior analyses, namely by means of what he called “nonlinear behavior
analyses.” This conception of functional analysis gave rise to formulations about freedom that are
also unique and worthy of separate review. In addition to the “possibility of choice,” Goldiamond
considers that freedom would also involve the possibility of “genuine choices.”
The fact that Goldiamond has published many of his works in non-behavior-analytic journals
(e.g., Arizona Law Review, Behavior Disorders: Perspectives and Trends) contributes to the reality
of his ideas remaining little-known or even unknown in the behavior analysis community (Layng,
2009), which also applies to his formulations about freedom. In addition to the fact that Goldia-
mond has a large number of publications outside behavior analysis, Layng (2009) also identifies
that citations from his papers in behavior-analytic journals have declined over the past few years,
even with the republication of one of his most important articles (Goldiamond, 1974/2002) in
Behavior and Social Issues.
FERNANDES & DITTRICH
8
In this process, there is a risk that his contributions to behavior analysis could be lost without
proper appreciation. Gimenez, Layng, and Andronis (2003) even state that Goldiamond’s formu-
lation about freedom is “better articulated and technically more satisfying than the pioneering
exploration presented by Skinner” (p. 40), although they do not explore the theme further in this
chapter.
The purpose of this article, therefore, is to revisit and discuss the behavior-analytic meaning
of “freedom” proposed by Goldiamond, through the review of articles in which he addressed the
subject. To that end, the following will be presented: (a) Goldiamond’s first remarks on freedom;
(b) his proposal of a nonlinear behavior analysis; (c) the concepts of degrees of freedom, degrees
of coercion and “genuine choice”; and finally, (d) the types of coercion identified by Goldiamond
that ultimately limit freedom in different social contexts. Finally, we discuss how and to what
extent Goldiamond’s formulation constitutes an expansion of the behavior-analytic meanings of
freedom, indicating its differences and similarities with Skinner’s, Baum’s and Catania’s formu-
lations.
Outlining a Behavior-Analytic Meaning of “Freedom”
Goldiamond’s first remarks on the meaning of freedom for behavior analysis appear in an
article published in 1965. In this article, the author states that the term “freedom” is “often equated
to the absence of control,” and that one of the implications of this point of view is that an efficient
operant psychology would be “dictatorial” (1965, p. 251), as it advocates for the exercise of con-
trol. However, consistently with behavior-analytic principles, the notion of freedom as the absence
of control is readily criticized by Goldiamond (1965):
Closer examination, however, reveals that freedom may not be synonymous with sloppi-
ness. The child who responds, “In just a minute, Daddy,” when called to brush his teeth,
may not be more free than one who responds immediately. He may be watching a television
show whose reinforcements are controlling watching behavior. His behavior may be under
effective environmental control. Fundamentally, the subject at issue between obeying the
paternal command and not obeying it may not even be one of sloppy control versus good
control but rather one of whose control is involved. In this sense, freedom is an irrelevant
term, as it is in the case of freedom from physics laws. (p. 251)
Once the absence of control as a meaning of freedom for behavior analysis is discarded, the
need for identification of a meaning that is consistent with its assumptions arises. To this end, the
alternative chosen by Goldiamond (1965) to deal with this issue was to use a strategy similar to
Skinner’s (1945/1984, 1957) for identifying the “meaning” of words in general. Skinner (1957)
argues that the meaning of a word is a property of the conditions under which its emission occurs.
That is, in order to identify the meanings of a term such as “freedom,” the identification and char-
acterization of the behavioral conditions that control its emission are necessary.
Thus, Goldiamond proposes the development of a satisfactory answer to the following ques-
tion: “Given two people, one of whom we agree has more freedom than the other, what are the
behaviors and conditions which differentiate them?” (1965, p. 251). This is the question that guides
his initial argument about the meanings of freedom.
2
The answer to this question, in his 1965
2
The use of such question is an example of the procedure used by Goldiamond (1965) to identify the meaning of
terms and expressions, which was referred by him as The Basic Behavioral Question. This procedure is defined and
CONTRIBUTIONS OF ISRAEL GOLDIAMOND
9
article, may be considered limited (there are only three paragraphs about freedom throughout the
text) when compared to the conception of freedom developed by the author in later years (in papers
that we analyze below). Even so, these passages already suggest the direction that his treatment of
the meaning of freedom would take from then on:
A person who is ‘compelled’ does not have many response alternatives available to him
during the conditions of his compulsion. We may be able to alter his behaviors, so that
when the hither to compelling conditions are now presented, a variety of responses may
occur, that is, more response alternatives are available. [...] [W]e define freedom in terms
of the number of response alternatives available […] A person who is more free than other
may have more types of alternative consequences contingent upon his differing behaviors
and may, therefore, have more response alternatives than the other person. (Goldiamond,
1965, pp. 251-252)
Thus freedom to Goldiamond (1965) is, at first, the availability of alternative responses. The
initial focus of Goldiamond's considerations is on the behavioral repertoire: the richer the behav-
ioral alternatives to deal effectively with his environment are, the freer a person is. Despite the
mention of the availability of “contingent alternative consequences” as part of the definition of
freedom, this aspect receives little attention in the rest of the article.
Other aspects of this initial consideration about freedom made by Goldiamond (1965) should
be emphasized. The first one is that the way in which the author constructs the question that guide
his initial formulation, as well as the answer he gives to it, suggests that freedom and coercion are
not absolute statuses. One person can be freer than another or may be more subject to coercion
than another. Greater or lesser freedom would depend on the amount of alternative responses avail-
able. Using a distinction presented by Widerquist (2013), it is possible to say that Goldiamond
emphasizes a scalar conception of freedom (e.g., “John is more free than Paul,” “Paul is less free
than John”), rather than a conception of freedom as an absolute status (e.g., “John is free,” “John
is not free”).
A second point highlighted in the text is that increasing freedom implies, for Goldiamond
(1965), a reduction of coercive conditions. Since it is a scalar concept, freedom does not neces-
sarily equate to the absence of coercion, but rather to a reduction of coercive conditions through
the increase of available alternative responses. Thus, it is clear that a satisfactory behavior-analytic
definition of “freedom” also depends on the definition of the term “coercion.” In short, what char-
acterizes coercion to Goldiamond (1965) in this first moment is a limited (or nonexistent) amount
of alternative responses available in order to deal with aversive conditions.
These are the two aspects that constitute, for Goldiamond, the basis on which a behavior-an-
alytic meaning of freedom may be defined. In subsequent works (1974/2002, 1975a, 1975b, 1976,
1984) these two aspects—the scalar nature of freedom and coercion, and the emphasis on the
availability of alternative responses—are reviewed and revised in detail, thus resulting in a more
synthetic formulation that, according to the author, corresponds to an everyday use of the term in
question: “freedom will be defined in terms of the genuine choices available” (Goldiamond, 1976,
p. 22).
illustrated as follows: “The scientist may define ‘mother love’ operationally as the number of kisses a mother gives a
child. The Basic Behavioral Question asks: ‘When people use the term ‘mother love’, what behaviors of the mother
are they talking about and what are the conditions under which these behaviors must occur for them to use this term?’
The attempt is made to have contact with the usage of the term by the social community.” (Goldiamond, 1965, p. 249).
FERNANDES & DITTRICH
10
When Goldiamond defines freedom as the availability of genuine choices, his effort turns
to the description of the conditions and behaviors that allow and justify the use of such a definition.
The strategy for identification and characterization of the meanings of expressions remains the
same as in the 1965 article. An important feature of this new definition is the reference to the term
“choice,” which demands the description of the conditions that allow the use of that word. This in
turn will permit the identification of the conditions that renders a choice “genuine,” as well as the
description of the relationships between “genuine choice” and freedom.
Choice and Nonlinear Behavior Analysis
In order to identify whether or not there is a condition of choice it is necessary to examine the
set of behavioral alternatives available in a given situation (Goldiamond, 1975a). A well-defined
behavioral alternative might be to work at a mine and receive money as a consequence. In a situ-
ation in which there is no choice, alternatives to work at the mine are not available or are not
formally defined—or else, they can be loosely described as “doing anything else” or simply “stay-
ing unemployed.” To be able to say that there is a choice at least two well-defined behavioral
alternatives are necessary. That is, if in addition to working at the mine there are other alternatives,
such as working at a farm, a factory, etc., a condition that is typically called a choice is established
(Goldiamond, 1975a).
In Goldiamond’s conception, a proper analysis of choice behavior (e.g., “working at the mine”
when there is the alternative of “working at the farm”) requires the execution of what he calls
nonlinear behavior analyses (1974/2002, 1975b, 1976, 1984). For the author, functional analyses
of behavior are more often characterized by a descriptive linear logic. In this logic, behavior is
functionally described by the contingent relation between a response and its antecedent and con-
sequent stimulus. Thus, the analysis of behavioral instances is treated “mainly in the context of an
algebra of intra-contingency variables (such as instructional stimuli, reinforcement schedules,
motivational variables, and so on)” (Gimenez et al., 2003, p. 36).
On the other hand, a nonlinear behavior analysis considers the response under investigation
as a function of multiple concurrent contingencies (Goldiamond, 1975b; Layng, 2009). This is a
descriptive model that takes into account not only the antecedent and consequent stimuli of the
specific response under investigation, but also the antecedent and consequent stimuli of alternative
patterns of response present in an individual’s repertoire. In order to provide an analysis of choice
and the conditions under which it occurs, a nonlinear behavior analysis would be appropriate as it
provides a description of the behavioral flow based on an analysis of relationships between con-
tingencies. As argued by Gimenez et al. (2003), a nonlinear behavior analysis seeks to explain
“both concurrent contingencies and the dynamic interaction between their defining variables in the
course of time” (p. 36).
Thus, choice behavior is analyzed as a function not only “of the occasions and consequences
(and their histories) that immediately circumscribe it, but also of the occasions and consequences
of alternative patterns (and their histories)” (Gimenez et al., 2003, p. 308). The procedures
suggested by Goldiamond (1975a, 1976, 1984) as necessary for an understanding of why an
alternative is preferred over another are: (a) to identify the set alternative contingencies that
comprise the situation of choice; (b) to analyze the responses costs and the consequential benefits
of all the alternative behavioral patterns. In a nonlinear behavior analysis, the choice of “working
at the mine,” for example, is understood not only as a function of the antecedent and consequent
stimuli (e.g., reinforcing value) and the response cost related to this behavioral pattern, but also as
CONTRIBUTIONS OF ISRAEL GOLDIAMOND
11
a function of the antecedent and consequent stimuli and the response cost related to alternative
behavioral patterns (e.g., “working at the farm”).
3
Degrees of Freedom and Coercion
When Goldiamond relates freedom with the availability of choices his arguments take as a
backdrop the notion of a nonlinear behavior analysis. Goldiamond (1975b, 1976) also borrows
from physics the concept of degrees of freedom (df), in order to better characterize the behavioral
conditions of choice. In that field of knowledge, this concept is commonly used to refer to the
amount of independent variables that can be specified and that determine a system. The example
given by Goldiamond (1976) to illustrate how the concept can be used refers to the calculation
formula of the volume of a cube: V = l.w.h, where V is the volume, l is the length, w is the width
and h is the height. Three of the values in this formula can vary independently and, when specified,
allow the determination of the fourth value, which determines the system being analyzed (e.g.,
l.w.h determines the value of V, as well as V.w.h determines the value of l). Therefore, in this
example, df = 3, since the complete determination of the system depends on the specification of
three variables (Goldiamond, 1976).
When applied to the nonlinear behavior analysis of choice, the concept of degrees of freedom
specifies the number of behavioral alternatives that compose a given situation. If in a given social
context working at the mine is the only alternative that allows access to a critical consequence
(e.g., survival)—otherwise one would simply “starve”— then df = 0 in relation to available jobs.
There are no degrees of freedom and, as a result, it is possible to say that working at the mine was
not a free choice. If, however, there are the options of working at a farm or at an industry in addition
to working at the mine, then df = 2. In the latter case, only one class of behavior is emitted (i.e.,
“chosen”), such as “working at the mine,” but the availability of two alternatives sets a higher
degree of freedom. In sum, n different contingencies minus one define the degree of behavioral
freedom in a given condition of choice. In the context of this hypothetical labor market, according
to Goldiamond (1976), it is more likely that workers will feel more independent, and the abuse by
employers who control the access to critical reinforcers becomes less likely.
For Goldiamond, using the concept of degrees of freedom is justified because it “not only
suggests that freedom is a matter of degrees, but also implies that coercion … is also a matter of
degrees” (Goldiamond, 1976, p. 22). Assuming that survival is a critical consequence and access
to it is made contingent only to one response class, such as working at the mine (i.e., either a person
works at the mine or “dies of starvation”), the degree of coercion (dc)
4
is maximal. Thus, when df
= 0, dc value is maximal. In the context of a labor market used as an example, “where there was a
choice between mine, mill, factory, and farm, coercion was lower since df had a higher value”
(Goldiamond, 1976, p. 22). We have, then, a relationship of inverse proportion: the greater the
number of behavioral alternatives, the greater is the degree of freedom and, therefore, the lower is
the degree of coercion.
The transposition of the concept of “degrees of freedom” from physics to a nonlinear behavior
analysis of choice and the subsequent proposition of the concept of degrees of coercion character-
izes the way Goldiamond relates a greater number of choice possibilities with the consideration of
3
An extended presentation of the notion of nonlinear behavior analysis can be found in Goldiamond (1975b, 1984).
4
Differently from the concept of “degrees of freedom,” the concept of “degrees of coercion” is not taken from physics.
In this case, its use is merely figurative (Goldiamond, 1976).
FERNANDES & DITTRICH
12
a person as “freer”. The concern in specifying the degrees of freedom and coercion also shows the
scalar nature of the meanings of “freedom” and “coercion,” which was already present in Goldia-
mond’s (1965) initial formulation.
Freedom as the “Availability of Genuine Choices”
We described the behavioral conditions that define “choice,” as well as how Goldiamond per-
forms his nonlinear analysis. Choices were then characterized by the degrees of freedom and co-
ercion that they present. However, Goldiamond's definition of freedom involves not only the pos-
sibility of choices, but also the availability of genuine choices.
This is a conceptual refinement made by Goldiamond in relation to the 1965 formulation. If
the meaning of freedom was previously defined simply “in terms of the genuine choices available”
(Goldiamond, 1965, p. 251)—emphasizing the behavioral alternatives—now Goldiamond (1975a)
argues that, in order for a choice to be considered genuine, what has been called behavioral alter-
natives need, necessarily, to denote the availability of alternative contingencies that are equally
possible.
It is not enough that the behavioral repertoire of a person enables him to work at a mine (i.e.,
that the person has mining skills) if there are no mines or job opportunities for working at mines
in that context. In this case, working at the mine is not a genuine behavioral alternative, because
there is no possibility of establishing a contingency relationship between a response class (e.g.,
mining) and opportunities in the social environment that would guarantee access to critical conse-
quences (e.g., survival). Inversely, it is possible to imagine situations in which there is an abun-
dance of opportunities of employment (e.g., mine, farm, factory, etc.), but a person does not have
the necessary skills to fill any of the vacancies or is not aware of the existence of such vacancies.
In this case, contingency relations are also not established—this time however due to a deficit in
the behavioral repertoire of the person in question.
As Goldiamond puts it (1975a), “freedom requires that the alternative contingencies be
equally possible” (p. 124), and only to the extent that these are in fact equally possible “increase
in degrees of freedom may be defined” (p. 123). It is in this sense that Goldiamond (1965) states
that a person who had access to a good school education and, consequently, has greater access to
alternatives of paid work, “is freer than someone who can only dig ditches for a living” (p. 252).
In order to summarize the importance of a behavioral understanding of genuine choice and its
relationship with the meaning of “freedom” Goldiamond (1976) argues:
Failure to distinguish genuine choice from simple availability of alternatives, no matter
how well their availability is made known in an informed consent procedure, is reminiscent
of Anatole France's statement on the impartiality of the law which “in its majestic equality
forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep on the bridges, to beg on the streets, and to steal
bread”. (p. 23)
Genuine Choices and Critical Consequences
Still, Goldiamond (1976) highlights that the availability of alternative contingencies—i.e., the
existence of a behavioral repertoire plus the existence of opportunities necessary for its occur-
rence—is not enough to characterize a choice as genuine. The possibility of genuine choices also
requires that critical consequences are available for different behavioral patterns. Critical conse-
quences, according to Goldiamond (1976), are those that when made contingent to any particular
CONTRIBUTIONS OF ISRAEL GOLDIAMOND
13
behavior generally have a powerful control over it, showing high reinforcement value when added
(e.g., food for the starving) or when removed (e.g., electric shock of high intensity). In other words,
they are consequences that, given certain conditions or operations, are preferred in all choice situ-
ations.
In some cases, depending on a number of conditions, certain consequences become more crit-
ical than others (Goldiamond, 1974/2002; 1976). In laboratory settings, for an example, it is pos-
sible to reinforce an organism with two different consequences, keep the response cost and other
variables constant and then check which of the consequences will be produced with greater fre-
quency (i.e., the one that will be “preferred” by the organism). The preference for a consequence
over the other can not only be measured but manipulated in a laboratory. One of the alternatives
to manipulate the value of certain consequences is the control of the degree of deprivation. An
organism with appropriate body weight and satiated tends to prefer opportunities to exercise rather
than opportunities to eat (Goldiamond, 1976). However, the experimenter can deprive the organ-
ism of food, reducing its body weight by 30 or 40%, thus ensuring that “food,” now a powerful
positive reinforcer, will be a critical consequence.
The value of a certain consequence—or to what extent the consequence is indeed critical—is
an essential aspect of the meaning of coercion proposed by Goldiamond. Consequently, analysis
of how critical are the consequences of different behavioral patterns (that make up a situation of
choice) is necessary to conceptualize a meaning of “freedom.” In a previous example, a hypothet-
ical labor market was described in which “survival” (i.e., access to essential resources), a critical
consequence, was made contingent to only one class of responses (working at a mine). For Goldi-
amond, situations such as this constitute severe coercion, since there are no choices (df = 0) and
the consequence contingent on the response class is critical (1975a).
In the above example the degree of behavioral freedom in relation to job choices would be
greater if there were alternative contingency relations for working at a farm or factory (therefore,
df = 2), which would provide access to essential resources for survival. However, Goldiamond
(1976) claims that a condition like this can still be considered coercive, for even if there are alter-
natives of wage labor (df > 0) in a labor market, they are the only choices that provide access to
the critical consequence in question, with no alternative means of survival other than the market.
The control of the behavior of the worker by the employers, in this example, is possible due to the
lack of access to essential resources, which makes survival a critical consequence for workers. At
this point, Goldiamond (1976) acknowledges that, even though it is possible to describe conditions
and behaviors that characterize coercion and freedom, there is an important ethical dimension in
the definition of those terms, rendering a strict scientific description insufficient. This dimension
concerns the “degrees and type of coercion we tolerate, and what safeguards against abuse these
require” (Goldiamond, 1976, p. 25), given the difficulty of conceiving a world fully free from
coercion.
A situation similar to the example of the labor market is the coercive use of token economies
in custodial or mental health institutions—a procedure based on principles derived from the ex-
perimental analysis of behavior which was commonly used in the United States during the 1960s
and 1970s (Wexler, 1973; Goldiamond, 1974/2002). Goldiamond himself (1974/2002) reports a
visit he made to a psychiatric institution that used tokens as conditioned reinforcers, established
through the deprivation of access to bed, forcing patients to sleep on a cold floor. Access to the
bed was made a critical consequence, since only such access made possible to avoid contact with
the aversive cold floor during the nights. The staff required the emission of certain behavioral
patterns so that patients received tokens which could be exchanged for access to the beds. In this
FERNANDES & DITTRICH
14
case, even if there are alternative contingencies available to earn the tokens (df > 0) the institutional
practice can be considered coercive, since it makes the access to a critical consequence (beds)
contingent to certain behaviors defined by the institution. As Goldiamond (1975b) states:
The issue is one of coercion. It can be argued that positive reinforcement is used coercively
when the controlling system makes a potent consequence contingent only on the TB (target
behavior) it requires, and especially so when it also creates the conditions which make the
consequence potent. A system which creates some critical state of need, such as famine (or
doesn't create it, but takes advantage of it), and then makes food delivery contingent only
on the specified behavior repertoire it desires, leaving the recipient with the choice of starv-
ing or acceding, can certainly be called coercive. (p. 61)
This applies both to experimental situations in laboratories—in which non-human animals are
deprived of food or water—as well as to the examples of labor market and mental health institu-
tions that use the token economy. The passage above also points to a distinction between systems
that create critical situations of need and those that do not create but take advantage of them.
Institutionally Instigated Coercion and Institutionally Opportune Coercion
In order to conclude Goldiamond’s characterization of the meaning of coercion we present
now two specific types of coercion that he identifies: institutionally instigated coercion and insti-
tutionally opportune coercion. Institutionally instigated coercion is the one in which the institution
arranges the set of contingencies that provides access to critical consequences and also establishes
the conditions that make the consequences critical (Goldiamond, 1976). An example is the use of
non-human animals in behavior analysis research. The experimenters themselves establish the
behaviors to be reinforced and the conditions that make access to water or food critical conse-
quences (i.e., through deprivation). As Goldiamond argues, if “deprived pigeons could consent,
and were required to do so, before undertaking the training program which is their only means of
obtaining food, such consent could be considered as having been obtained under severe coercion,
rendered all the more severe by the fact that it was the experimental system itself which made
potent the reinforcer it provides” (1976, p. 24).
Goldiamond (1976) provides other examples in addition to the laboratorial experiments with
non-human animals. When prisons establish that prisoners “willing to participate” in biomedical
research projects shall have access to early parole (critical consequence) this is also a case of
institutionally instigated coercion. In this case, the penal system itself, which has the power to
deprive someone of freedom, also has the power to use the “restitution of freedom” to make pris-
oners behave in ways defined by the institution.
In the context of this example it is important to differentiate critical consequences from those
that are entirely program-specific—or, as Goldiamond (1974/2002) puts it, those that occur as a
direct result of the contingency. An early parole may be the critical consequence that governs
prisoner participation in a biomedical research instituted by the penal system. Direct contact with
(or being informed about) non-therapeutic “side effects” during the process of an experimental
treatment would be among the program-specific consequences. If there is at least one degree of
freedom (i.e., there are at least two ways to get an earlier parole), the program-specific conse-
quences will have a greater chance of govern the contingency and, by doing so, define a more
genuine choice—where side effects of an experimental treatment may enter into, and may influ-
ence the choice. In sum, equivalence of critical consequences across alternatives allows program-
CONTRIBUTIONS OF ISRAEL GOLDIAMOND
15
specific consequences across alternatives to have an effect—thus resulting in more genuine
choices.
Other examples of institutionally instigated coercion are the use of torture methods, in which
the relief of pain afflicted by institutional agents is made contingent on behaviors imposed by the
system (e.g., confessions, delivery of information, etc.), and situations in which a company artifi-
cially produces shortages of some key product of which it holds a monopoly and then profits from
it.
Institutionally opportune coercion, on the other hand, is the one in which the institution
arranges the set of contingencies that provide access to critical consequences but it does not by
itself have the means to make certain consequences critical (Goldiamond, 1976). In this case the
institution only takes advantage of the opportunity afforded by the “state of things,” whether nat-
ural or human-made. The examples presented by the author come from the “helping professions”
in general, especially medical institutions (Goldiamond, 1976). In these cases, patients must
undergo certain forms of treatment and behave according to the institutional prescriptions in order
to have access to critical consequences (e.g., pain relief, cure, etc.). When df = 0 and the conse-
quences are critical there is a severe situation of coercion that “is not lessened by the fact that it
was not institutionally instigated, nor is it lessened by its social prevalence, inevitability, or desir-
ability” (Goldiamond, 1976, p. 26).
Examples such as this emphasize again the ethical dimensions of the discussion about coer-
cion. Institutionally opportune coercion provides the possibility of establishing socially desirable
or acceptable practices, but also creates opportunities for establishing abusive practices. A medical
institution that holds a monopoly on some specific treatment may, for example, stipulate abusive
prices for access to critical consequences. In such cases, according to Goldiamond (1976), society
needs to define the degrees and types of coercion that it is willing to accept and to create protections
against abuse (e.g., breaking up monopolies, creating oversight bodies, etc.).
The labor market can also be characterized as an institutionally opportune system of coercion.
Employers may stipulate the behaviors required for access to critical consequences by workers
under various deprivation conditions. The deprivation conditions are not necessarily instigated by
the employers themselves. Examples of abuse arising from this type of coercion were especially
common throughout the 19th century (Polanyi, 2001; Steinfeld, 2001), during the process of con-
solidating wage labor in capitalist societies. Throughout history, a number of collective actions
were required to mitigate these abuses (e.g. the creation and consolidation of trade unions, labor
laws, etc.).
Conclusion
For Goldiamond, the possibility of making genuine choices constitute an adequate behavior-
analytic meaning of freedom. In order for a choice to be considered genuine there must be a set of
alternative contingencies that provide access to critical consequences. The greater the number of
alternative contingencies available in a given condition, the greater is the degree of behavioral
freedom of choice. As summarized by Goldiamond himself:
Genuine choices involve such options when contingency repertoires are equal. Equality of
contingency repertoires requires equally available opportunities or occasions, equally
available patterns of behavior, equally potent consequences, and since they are contingency
repertoires and repertoires require establishment over time, equally functional contingency
histories. (1976, p. 38)
FERNANDES & DITTRICH
16
The degree of behavioral coercion is also defined by the number of alternative contingencies
available, but inversely to the degree of behavioral freedom: the smaller the number of alternative
contingencies available, the greater the coercion. For Goldiamond, coercion is characterized by
how critical are the consequences that control the choice behaviors and also by the types of con-
ditions that make certain consequences critical (institutionally instigated or institutionally oppor-
tune). Insofar as degrees of behavioral freedom and coercion are identified and characterized it
becomes possible to say that a person is more or less free than another (or is more or less subject
to coercion than another). Thus, for Goldiamond, this meaning of coercion cannot simply be
reduced to the identification of the presence of aversive control—a practice commonly found in
the literature of the area, as Hunziker (2017) indicates.
The distinction between institutionally instigated coercion and institutionally opportune coer-
cion allows for a behavior-analytic interpretation of the power relations present in several social
contexts. These concepts allow for a better characterization of situations in which individuals or
groups that have power over essential resources (controllers) arrange the sets of contingencies that
allow other individuals or groups (controlled) access to such resources (critical consequences). In
the specific case of institutionally instigated coercion it becomes possible to identify and charac-
terize situations in which controllers are also in a position to render certain consequences critical.
It is worth noting that the notion of critical consequences can be related to the concept of motiva-
tional operations (Michael, 1982). A detailed investigation of the theoretical and practical impli-
cations of this relation can bring relevant contributions to the discussion on the behavioral mean-
ings of freedom and coercion.
Goldiamond’s emphasis on the identification and characterization of the set of alternative
contingencies that comprise a context is justified by its use of nonlinear behavior analysis. While
Skinner's formulations about freedom are marked by linear analysis which emphasizes the tem-
poral nature of the aversive consequences (immediate or deferred), a nonlinear behavior analysis
helps the behavior analyst to discriminate the availability or unavailability of alternative contin-
gencies in the immediate context.
However, this does not mean that Goldiamond’s formulations about freedom are “better
articulated or technically more satisfactory” than those of Skinner, as suggested by Gimenez et al.
(2003). The relationships pointed out by Skinner between his proposed meaning of freedom and
the concepts of “self-control,” “self-knowledge” and “countercontrol” may also be interpreted in
the light of Goldiamond’s formulations. An expansion of the repertoires of self-control, self-
knowledge and countercontrol provides individuals with alternatives of access to opportunities
(antecedents) and critical consequences (powerful reinforcers) in their social environment. The
formulations of Skinner and Goldiamond about freedom may complement each other, thus
expanding the behavior-analytic meanings of freedom.
As we noted, Baum’s (2017) and Catania’s (1980) formulations about freedom are similar to
Goldiamond’s. However, even if the three authors treat freedom as possibility of choice their anal-
yses differ in scope or emphasis. Goldiamond’s formulations are not restricted to an analysis of
the availability of behavioral alternatives without aversive consequences, which is emphasized by
Baum (2017). For Goldiamond, coercion may exist even in situations where there is a set of alter-
native contingencies that allow access to critical consequences, which are characterized as positive
reinforcers. This is the case in the labor market which, even if providing different job opportunities
(i.e., greater degree of behavioral freedom) offers no alternative of survival besides wage labor.
CONTRIBUTIONS OF ISRAEL GOLDIAMOND
17
The individual may choose his employer, but cannot choose “not to work.”
5
The same occurs in
the prisons and mental health institutions described by Goldiamond. In those institutions, even if
there are different ways of getting tokens (conditioned positive reinforcers) inmates or patients
have no other means of getting access to beds.
On the other hand, the experiments of Catania (1980, 1997) and Rost et al. (2014) reveal that
organisms (human and non-human) prefer situations of forced choice rather than those of free
choice when the former provides greater reinforcers. In other words, organisms give up the
“opportunity to choose” in favor of a condition of forced choice when the consequences available
in this condition have high reinforcing value. This is an experimental finding that complements
Goldiamond’s considerations about the importance of assessing not only the degree of behavioral
freedom of choice, but how critical certain consequences are for an organism. In this sense, the
difference in scope and emphasis of Goldiamond’s analysis—in comparison to those of Baum
(2017) and Catania (1980, 1997)—may be characterized as an even more specific expansion of the
behavior analytic meanings of freedom, namely those that deal with the relationship between free-
dom and possibility of choice.
In practical terms, this conceptual expansion enables new dialogues with other areas of
knowledge that deal directly or indirectly with the subject of freedom (e.g., political philosophy,
economics, sociology, anthropology, etc.). Additionally, a behavioral analyst may act in different
contexts in order to promote an expansion of the degrees of behavioral freedom and the possibili-
ties of genuine choices. This may occur, for example, in the practice of psychotherapy, insofar as
the behavior analyst assists in the expansion of behavioral repertoires, thus facilitating the emer-
gence of alternative contingencies.
6
In this case, it can be said, metaphorically, that the therapist
enables an extension of the “horizon of possibilities” of his patient.
The behavior analyst may also assist in the design of public policies, in order to enable certain
vulnerable groups to have new opportunities that, in turn, can ensure access to critical conse-
quences. Regarding such possible practical implications, Goldiamond (1965) claims that his for-
mulations on freedom are not “incompatible with control of behavior and, by alerting us to the
sources of reinforcement in a community, may alert us how to program our environment to main-
tain and even to extend freedom; it may make us effective as well as well-meaning” (p. 252).
Finally, even though it is possible to propose meanings of “freedom” and “coercion” con-
sistent with behavior-analytic assumptions, Goldiamond also makes it clear that these concepts
have an important ethical-political dimension. The behavioral analyst may identify and character-
ize the degrees of behavioral coercion and freedom in a given social context and may even, through
this technical reading of the context, promote ways of expanding the degrees of freedom of certain
individuals or groups. However, he cannot stipulate by himself the types and degrees of coercion
that we, as a society, will be willing to accept. Moreover, he cannot stipulate the degrees of free-
dom that we, as a society, will be willing to consider fundamental. Ultimately, decisions about the
types and degrees of freedom that are considered fundamental in a society are an outcome of
5
Of course the availability of different employers does not guarantee, by itself, that a person will be employed by any
of them. On the other hand, given certain conditions, a person may choose other alternatives that allow access to
essential resources (e.g., seeking social assistance or even theft or begging). Assessing how genuine a choice is
depends on conducting a detailed analysis of the contingencies in question.
6
For further explorations on this argument see Goldiamond (1974/2002; 1984).
FERNANDES & DITTRICH
18
political disputes. Such disputes occur not only between the actors and organizations of institu-
tional or partisan politics, but also between corporations, social movements, activists, etc. It is up
to the behavioral analyst to elucidate the contingencies at stake in these disputes as well as to
intervene, when appropriate, on such contingencies in a politically and ethically oriented manner.
References
Abib, J. A. D. (2016). Cenário de uma revolução psicológica. Revista Brasileira de Terapia Comportamental e
Cognitiva, 18, 27–39.
Baum, W. M. (2017). Understanding behaviorism: Behavior, culture, and evolution (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1002/9781119143673
Brandenburg, O. J., & Weber, L. N. D. (2005). Autoconhecimento e liberdade no behaviorismo radical. Psico-USF,
10, 87–92.
Catania, A. C. (1980). Freedom of choice: A behavioral analysis. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 14,
97–145. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60160-7
Cerutti, D., & Catania, A. C. (1997). Pigeons’ preference for free choice: Number of keys versus key area. Journal
of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 68, 349–56. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1997.68-349
Cruz, R. N. (2010). Possíveis relações entre o contexto histórico e a recepção do behaviorismo radical. Psicologia:
Ciência e Profissão, 30, 478–491. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1590/S1414-98932010000300004
Dittrich, A. (2010). Sentidos possíveis de “liberdade” no behaviorismo radical. In M. M. C. Hübner, M. R. Garcia,
P. R. Abreu, E. N. P. Cillo, & P. B. Faleiros (Eds.), Sobre comportamento e cognição: Vol. 25. Análise
experimental do comportamento, cultura, questões conceituais e filosóficas (pp. 13-17). Santo André: ESETec.
Gimenez, L. S., Layng, T. V. J., & Andronis, P. T. (2003). Contribuições de Israel Goldiamond para o
desenvolvimento da análise do comportamento. In M. Z. S. Brandão, F. C. S. Conte, F. S. Brandão, Y. K.
Ingberman, C. B. Moura, V. M. Silva, & S. M. Oliane (Eds.), Sobre comportamento e cognição: Vol. 11. A
história e os avanços, a seleção por consequências em ação (pp. 34–46). Santo André: ESETec.
Goldiamond, I. (1965). Justified and unjustified alarm over behavioral control. In O. Milton (Ed.), Behavior
disorders: Perspectives and trends (pp. 237–261). New York: J. B. Lipincott.
Goldiamond, I. (1975a). Singling out behavior modification for legal regulation: Some effects on patient care,
psychotherapy, and research in general. Arizona Law Review, 17, 105–126.
Goldiamond, I. (1975b). Alternative sets as a framework for behavioral formulations and research. Behaviorism, 3,
49–86.
Goldiamond, I. (1976). Protection of human subjects and patients: A social contingency analysis of distinctions
between research and practice, and its implications. Behaviorism, 4, 1–41.
Goldiamond, I. (1984). Training parent trainers and ethicists in nonlinear analysis of behavior. In R. F. Dangel & R.
A. Polster (Eds.), Parent training: Foundations of research and practice (pp. 504–546). New York: Guilford.
Goldiamond, I. (2002). Toward a constructional approach to social problems: Ethical and constitutional issues raised
by applied behavior analysis. Behavior and Social Issues, 11, 108-197. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v11i2.92
Hamilton, L. F. T. (2012). Os usos do termo “liberdade” no anarquismo de Bakunin e no behaviorismo radical de
Skinner (Master's thesis). Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo. Retrieved from
http://www.teses.usp.br/teses/disponiveis/47/47132/tde-05102012-112802/publico/hamilton_me.pdf
Hunziker, M. H. L. (2017). Dogmas sobre o controle aversivo. Acta Comportamentalia, 25, 85–100.
Laurenti, C. (2009). Criatividade, liberdade e dignidade: Impactos do darwinismo no behaviorismo radical. Scientia
Studia, 7, 251–269.
Layng, T. V. J. (2009). The search for an effective clinical behavior analysis: The nonlinear thinking of Israel
Goldiamond. The Behavior Analyst, 32, 163–184.
Michael, J. (1982). Distinguishing between discriminative and motivational functions of stimuli. Journal of the
Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 37, 149-155. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.37-149
CONTRIBUTIONS OF ISRAEL GOLDIAMOND
19
Polanyi, K. (2001). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our times (2nd ed.). Boston,
MA: Beacon Press.
Rost, K. A., Hemmes, N. S., & Alvero, A. M. (2014). Effects of the relative values of alternatives on preference for
free-choice in humans. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 102, 241–251. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.99
Sidman, M. (1989). Coercion and its fallout. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.
Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. East Norwalk, CT: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. Middlesex, UK: Penguin Books.
Skinner, B. F. (1984). The operational analysis of psychological terms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 7, 547–581.
Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00027187
Steinfeld, R. J. (2001). Coercion, contract, and free labor in the nineteenth century. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Wexler, D. B. (1973). Token and taboo: Behavior modification, token economies, and the law. California Law
Review, 61, 81–109. Retrieved from http://doi.org/10.15779/Z38X507
Widerquist, K. (2013). Independence, propertylessness, and basic income: A theory of freedom as the power to say
no. Exploring the basic income guarantee (1st ed.). New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Retrieved from
http://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-31309-6
